Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.

In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.

Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition. Just took the most recent state and googled. Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.

See one post above you. And most DVs are considered not considered felonies. And given we have no problem putting people in jail once they have been charged with a crime, not convicted, I don't see how this should be treated any different. Also investigated is different than charged.

Gin - I was the jury foreman on a DV case. if you beat the shit out of your spouse, it's felony battery in my state. The case I was on (we convicted him), he punched the girlfriend one time while they were both high on crack and received a 6 year sentence with a felony conviction.

I suspect the reason that most DV are misdemeanors is because they are minor incidents. You're right people sometimes get away with DV. The system isn't perfect but the alternative is to take away rights from people w/o a jury trial or even after they are exonerated. That's a much worse alternative.

My point stands, those convicted of DV lose their rights in nearly all cases with a conviction. If someone is charged, I don't believe they should permanently lose their rights.

The problem is that many states are not that strict. What happened to the ex-wife would not have been a felony in florida but we know from research that DV escalate. And I never said permanently if they were charged and declared not guilty, but I admit I was not clear. I assumed that by equally it to being jailed it was be assumed that if the case was completed and the accused won, they could get access back. But I'll be more clear in the future. If you are charged with DV you should not be able to have access to a gun unless you are declared not guilty.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon. Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows. You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Gin - I was the jury foreman on a DV case. if you beat the shit out of your spouse, it's felony battery in my state. The case I was on (we convicted him), he punched the girlfriend one time while they were both high on crack and received a 6 year sentence with a felony conviction.

I suspect the reason that most DV are misdemeanors is because they are minor incidents. You're right people sometimes get away with DV. The system isn't perfect but the alternative is to take away rights from people w/o a jury trial or even after they are exonerated. That's a much worse alternative.

My point stands, those convicted of DV lose their rights in nearly all cases with a conviction. If someone is charged, I don't believe they should permanently lose their rights.

The problem is that many states are not that strict. What happened to the ex-wife would not have been a felony in florida but we know from research that DV escalate. And I never said permanently if they were charged and declared not guilty, but I admit I was not clear. I assumed that by equally it to being jailed it was be assumed that if the case was completed and the accused won, they could get access back. But I'll be more clear in the future. If you are charged with DV you should not be able to have access to a gun unless you are declared not guilty.

I'm not sure how you know this wouldn't have been a felony in Florida with the details I gave you.She had a black eye and visible bruising (maybe even a broken eye socket).

I'm not familiar with the laws of all 50 states, but I suspect (felony or not) they would lose their gun rights in all 50 states for that once convicted.

And in regard to the only federal law it is if and only if the person "has the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element". In addition, the offender must:Be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;Share a child in common with the victim;Be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; orBe similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.3Note also that a conviction requires that the offender was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel and was tried by a jury or waived the right to a jury, if the offense entitled the offender to a jury trial.

I'm not sure what your point is - that federal law requires that the trial wasn't mishandled? Or that it requires it to be a domestic violence charge? You posted an impressive list of criteria, but that list is awfully close to the list that classifies a crime as domestic violence in the first place.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon. Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows. You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Steve - It wouldn't be a burden on gun owners, it would clear up the current state. There are already limits for those selling guns without an FFL but the language is murky and Obama's recent executive action didn't help -

Craigslist and ebay both prohibit gun sales. As I said, you need an efficient marketplace to sell any volume of guns. If you set a clear statute and enforce the penalties, unlicensed dealers will quit selling and you will be dealing with the occasional guy/gal who wants to unload a gun w/o an FFL.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon. Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows. You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Steve - It wouldn't be a burden on gun owners, it would clear up the current state. There are already limits for those selling guns without an FFL but the language is murky and Obama's recent executive action didn't help -

Craigslist and ebay both prohibit gun sales. As I said, you need an efficient marketplace to sell any volume of guns. If you set a clear statute and enforce the penalties, unlicensed dealers will quit selling and you will be dealing with the occasional guy/gal who wants to unload a gun w/o an FFL.

So just to be clear . . . under your proposed changes, I can meet a guy online and hand him a gun for cash with no questions asked?

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon. Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows. You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Steve - It wouldn't be a burden on gun owners, it would clear up the current state. There are already limits for those selling guns without an FFL but the language is murky and Obama's recent executive action didn't help -

Craigslist and ebay both prohibit gun sales. As I said, you need an efficient marketplace to sell any volume of guns. If you set a clear statute and enforce the penalties, unlicensed dealers will quit selling and you will be dealing with the occasional guy/gal who wants to unload a gun w/o an FFL.

So just to be clear . . . under your proposed changes, I can meet a guy online and hand him a gun for cash with no questions asked?

Maybe -

a) Are you selling a substantial volume of guns each year w/o involving an FFL? 3, 5, 10? I'd set the number pretty low.b) You want to liquidate an estate full of guns - Set up a mechanism for background checks with or w/o an FFL.c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.d) You are already limited in selling guns geographically already.

Other than the shady people selling for a profit, I suspect most gun owners don't sell that often. Make it tough on the shady people and leave the guy selling his shotgun to his neighbor alone.

Incidentally, most of the recent mass shootings occurred with weapons purchased from FFL by the shooter themselves or through a straw man (San Bernadino).

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and look how many mass shootings we've had there. The shooters legally obtained the firearms and used illegal standard (aka "high") capacity magazines. The law prevented nothing in that case.

I am not a proponent of private sales and in many states this is illegal. ALL transfers must be done through an FFL so lets not make it like we have massive flea markets where every and anyone is swapping and buying guns without record or checks. This is ignorance of the law as much as people who think an AR-15 is an automatic weapon or that AR stands for "assault rifle."

We have a problem with radical Islam. Europeans are scared to come here? What about the Paris shootings? Brussels? Yesterday there was a terror attack with a knife in France that killed a police officer and his partner. Shit happens. You cannot stop someone hell bent on causing terror.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Steve:

It would be difficult to prove, but yes some responsibility would be an incentive not to sell to shady characters.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Sounds like you're introducing a method of punishing the sellers without granting them any additional resources or powers to protect themselves. It sounds like it'd be used as witch-hunting legislation because you don't like guns and what better way to achieve gun control that hit the suppliers, even if wrongly.

Eighteen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales. Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms, including purchases from unlicensed sellers; Maryland and Pennsylvania laws do the same, but are limited to handguns. Four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey) require any firearm purchaser, including a purchaser from an unlicensed seller, to obtain a permit issued after a background check, and four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) do the same only for handguns. Illinois also requires a background check whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show

By my count that's 36 states and D.C. that have restrictions on private gun sales. Most are coastal states or inland hubs like Illinois meaning it likely covers a large amount of the populace over, say, a state like Alaska. For the record, I believe we should have background checks for all firearm sales (yes I own firearms and yes I have been subject to background checks).

We can debate on this but there is at least one poster in this thread who is making it sound like the private sale loophole is near universal, which is erroneous.

So just to be clear . . . under your proposed changes, I can meet a guy online and then meet to hand him a gun for cash with no questions asked?

How do you propose to transfer the firearm "on line"?

Sorry, typo.

There is no difference between what you posted and meeting someone at the store. If you the seller don't ask questions then you the seller are foolish. You the seller might be breaking the law (depends).

Laws don't protect people: they never have. Laws state what behavior is unacceptable and what the penalties are for doing it anyway.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Sounds like you're introducing a method of punishing the sellers without granting them any additional resources or powers to protect themselves. It sounds like it'd be used as witch-hunting legislation because you don't like guns and what better way to achieve gun control that hit the suppliers, even if wrongly.

I see nothing to stop someone from being dishonest with their answers; I don't see how mandating questions would be effective.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Nope. The seller is responsible for his actions regardless of "what he knew". Remember that phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

I will say, as an opponent of most additional gun control laws, outlawing person to person sales is not a hill I want to die on IF we make it easy and inexpensive (Say, $10-20) to conduct a transfer through a FFL.

Logged

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

I will say, as an opponent of most additional gun control laws, outlawing person to person sales is not a hill I want to die on IF we make it easy and inexpensive (Say, $10-20) to conduct a transfer through a FFL.

Don't fall for that. Gun control supporters know they can't take away your rights in one fell swoop and they won't stop at what YOU think is reasonable. They'll just slowly chip away at your rights as you compromise over and over again. Once peer-to-peer is outlawed, they'll go after the only other means of obtaining firearms - FFL.

I will say, as an opponent of most additional gun control laws, outlawing person to person sales is not a hill I want to die on IF we make it easy and inexpensive (Say, $10-20) to conduct a transfer through a FFL.

Don't fall for that. Gun control supporters know they can't take away your rights in one fell swoop and they won't stop at what YOU think is reasonable. They'll just slowly chip away at your rights as you compromise over and over again. Once peer-to-peer is outlawed, they'll go after the only other means of obtaining firearms - FFL.

I'm aware. And I'm not in a hurry to give up ANY rights. But I can see how this particular one is the least defensible.

Logged

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

I will say, as an opponent of most additional gun control laws, outlawing person to person sales is not a hill I want to die on IF we make it easy and inexpensive (Say, $10-20) to conduct a transfer through a FFL.

Don't fall for that. Gun control supporters know they can't take away your rights in one fell swoop and they won't stop at what YOU think is reasonable. They'll just slowly chip away at your rights as you compromise over and over again. Once peer-to-peer is outlawed, they'll go after the only other means of obtaining firearms - FFL.

I'm aware. And I'm not in a hurry to give up ANY rights. But I can see how this particular one is the least defensible.

Nope, no more one-sided compromises. If they want 'better' laws, gun control activists need to give ground as well.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Nope. The seller is responsible for his actions regardless of "what he knew". Remember that phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

It's legal to sell someone a gun via private sale if you don't know that he is a felon. No ID is required.

Asking him if he's a felon removes (some?) doubt. If you don't ask, you're in a better legal position if it turns out that he was a felon, because you honestly didn't know.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but ignorance of who is buying your gun is a legally defensible one.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Nope. The seller is responsible for his actions regardless of "what he knew". Remember that phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

It's legal to sell someone a gun via private sale if you don't know that he is a felon. No ID is required.

Asking him if he's a felon removes (some?) doubt. If you don't ask, you're in a better legal position if it turns out that he was a felon, because you honestly didn't know.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but ignorance of who is buying your gun is a legally defensible one.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Sounds like you're introducing a method of punishing the sellers without granting them any additional resources or powers to protect themselves. It sounds like it'd be used as witch-hunting legislation because you don't like guns and what better way to achieve gun control that hit the suppliers, even if wrongly.

Yarger - Fair enough. Here was my thought, a) I'm checking your drivers license to make sure I can sell to you first (and making a copy) 2) Do you know what you are buying - If someone shows up more concerned about getting a gun than what they are getting, I probably would begin asking questions. 3) If I'm selling 2 or 3 guns and they are anxious to get them all w/o a good explanation, I'm asking questions.

You are right, they can lie. I don't want the completely put the liability on the honest seller, but if you are selling no questions asked to anyone w/o a check that's not good either.

This is stuff I would do regardless of a mandate. I don't need the cops showing up looking for a gun I sold to a criminal.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Sounds like you're introducing a method of punishing the sellers without granting them any additional resources or powers to protect themselves. It sounds like it'd be used as witch-hunting legislation because you don't like guns and what better way to achieve gun control that hit the suppliers, even if wrongly.

Yarger - Fair enough. Here was my thought, a) I'm checking your drivers license to make sure I can sell to you first (and making a copy) 2) Do you know what you are buying - If someone shows up more concerned about getting a gun than what they are getting, I probably would begin asking questions. 3) If I'm selling 2 or 3 guns and they are anxious to get them all w/o a good explanation, I'm asking questions.

c) Is the buyer a prohibited person or do you have reason to believe they are? If so, you aren't allowed to sell to them. Selling to known prohibited person is already illegal. Mandate some questions if you want.

This bit I like. It shifts some culpability to the seller. Under the current system, the less you ask the better protected you are as a seller. That's dumb. There should be incentive to make sure that the guy you're selling to isn't banned from owning a weapon.

Nope. The seller is responsible for his actions regardless of "what he knew". Remember that phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

It's legal to sell someone a gun via private sale if you don't know that he is a felon. No ID is required.

Really? Where would this be? Presenting an ID has always been required for me. And they also have always asked if I'm a felon and/or otherwise prohibited from buying firearms.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

How would this stop mass shootings? Or have we moved the goal posts again?

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons. I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals. Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable. In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops. If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area. Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

How would this stop mass shootings? Or have we moved the goal posts again?

Pretty much yes. You start with asking how to reduce firearms deaths, or mass shootings or whatever, quickly realize that not much of any policy will actually do those things, and jump right back to what you really wanted to do in the first place, which was stop regular people from buying guns. Whether quickly or slowly, in a fell swoop or so slowly no one notices, you ban guns. It's a mental quirk of certain kinds of people, to focus on the irrelevant when they can't face reality.

Like all gun threads, this one has gotten tired. Introduce any factual argument you wish, backed up with whatever data you have, and still, a few pages later the gun-controllers are right back with the same sad lines. This thread has been around the block at least twice.

Please, look at the international data, already presented earlier. Gun ownership has NO relationship to a country's level of violence. Gun laws do nothing. Canada and the US have the MOST LIBERAL gun laws in the entire New World, and are the two LEAST VIOLENT countries. Mexico? Strict gun laws, super-high violence. Same throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. All strict gun control, all unbelievably violent by US standards.

Then, look at Europe, another place with relatively liberal gun laws. Basically, anyone can jump through a few hoops and buy guns. Among the least violent countries on Earth. Then we have Japan, super-strict gun control, and super low violence. No relationship. Japanese-Americans, even to the third and fourth generations also have super-low violence rates, as do Swedish-Americans.

Violence is cultural. Violent people will be violent with whatever tools they have.

I will say, as an opponent of most additional gun control laws, outlawing person to person sales is not a hill I want to die on IF we make it easy and inexpensive (Say, $10-20) to conduct a transfer through a FFL.

Don't fall for that. Gun control supporters know they can't take away your rights in one fell swoop and they won't stop at what YOU think is reasonable. They'll just slowly chip away at your rights as you compromise over and over again. Once peer-to-peer is outlawed, they'll go after the only other means of obtaining firearms - FFL.

I'm aware. And I'm not in a hurry to give up ANY rights. But I can see how this particular one is the least defensible.

Why do FFL's have to call in the info? Why not make the background check system free and open to the public? If I want to sell you a gun, I can dial a phone and read off your SS# and spell out your name to the operator just as well as the employee of a gun shop? That to me would be a pretty easy compromise that would allow background checks on all purchases with minimal interference to private sales.

Logged

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

Actually that is not true. I can refuse to work with someone for being an ass, same as refusing to rent to them. What I can't do is refuse to work with/rent to based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

Actually that is not true. I can refuse to work with someone for being an ass, same as refusing to rent to them. What I can't do is refuse to work with/rent to based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

And if a Muslim wanders into a gun store, in FL no less in the South, and is denied service and decides to sue for racial discrimination, it's on the gun store owner to protect himself legally $$$$. "He seemed shady, and, I dunno, he had a name that was...you know..." Yeah, good luck to that small business owner.

Logged

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

Actually that is not true. I can refuse to work with someone for being an ass, same as refusing to rent to them. What I can't do is refuse to work with/rent to based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

And if a Muslim wanders into a gun store, in FL no less in the South, and is denied service and decides to sue for racial discrimination, it's on the gun store owner to protect himself legally $$$$. "He seemed shady, and, I dunno, he had a name that was...you know..." Yeah, good luck to that small business owner.

Yeah, because the way you put it, he would be in the wrong. Now if same person came in and started ordering me around and acting creepy and I said that, guess what I'd not have a problem.

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

Actually that is not true. I can refuse to work with someone for being an ass, same as refusing to rent to them. What I can't do is refuse to work with/rent to based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

And if a Muslim wanders into a gun store, in FL no less in the South, and is denied service and decides to sue for racial discrimination, it's on the gun store owner to protect himself legally $$$$. "He seemed shady, and, I dunno, he had a name that was...you know..." Yeah, good luck to that small business owner.

Yeah, because the way you put it, he would be in the wrong. Now if same person came in and started ordering me around and acting creepy and I said that, guess what I'd not have a problem.

Want to put money on that?

Logged

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

I am reading comments from both sides of the argument discussing things FFL sellers can do to help keep guns out of the wrong hands like asking questions, paying better attention to who they are selling to, etc.

What do you think would happen if an FFL refused to sell to someone they thought was suspicions, who, as it turns out, is part of a protected minority? They would get sued out of existence.

This is an unintended consequence of suing cake bakers (and others) for deciding who they do and don't want to do business with.

This is a point well worth considering in this discussion. The government is more or less mandating that as a business owner, you are not allowed to determine who you sell your products to - why would guns be somehow different?

Actually that is not true. I can refuse to work with someone for being an ass, same as refusing to rent to them. What I can't do is refuse to work with/rent to based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

And if a Muslim wanders into a gun store, in FL no less in the South, and is denied service and decides to sue for racial discrimination, it's on the gun store owner to protect himself legally $$$$. "He seemed shady, and, I dunno, he had a name that was...you know..." Yeah, good luck to that small business owner.

Yeah, because the way you put it, he would be in the wrong. Now if same person came in and started ordering me around and acting creepy and I said that, guess what I'd not have a problem.

Want to put money on that?

I already do by refusing to work with or rent to people that seem a risk.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

It also raises this potential problem: "if I'm a criminal and I want a gun, which houses should I break into?"

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

They would certainly be discriminated against in certain circles. In addition, it would provide a nice roadmap of where guns are stored. I don't advertise the fact we have firearms for both of those reasons.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

It also raises this potential problem: "if I'm a criminal and I want a gun, which houses should I break into?"

There is also the flipped issue. What if I'm a burglar and really don't want to encounter a old man wearing pajamas & holding a shotgun? Avoid the homes on the national registry.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

All of them could be hacked, and people could randomly decide that they want to target someone from one of those lists.

I, for one, would gladly accept the inconvenience that would come from having none of my personally identifiable information in any digital form.

You must be surrounded by some fantastically good drivers and honest people where you live. This change would make checking a driver's license impossible by a cop on the road. Enforcing traffic laws would therefore be a big farce. Anyone could just use a fake ID and fake insurance papers . . . the cop wouldn't be able to tell. If he wrote a ticket, he wouldn't know if the name on the license was real or not. Basically everyone would be driving based on the honor system.

It would also be pretty bad news for veterans. You know how shitty veterans services in the US are? That's because it's largely not computerized right now. You would sentence all future veterans to forever having to deal with the slowness and mistakes that occur due to mountains of paperwork.

Gin brought up an interesting point about discrimination when hiring or renting. If there was a national data base of all gun owners that could be accessed by anyone, like a potential employer or landlord, do you think people would discriminate against gun owners? Would they become a protected class? Could a landlord or employer be legally able to turn an applicant down because of their gun owning status?

ETA I realize it wouldn't be in a protected class - was just being a bit obnoxious. But I do think it's something that could be used to deny hiring or renting easily even if the owner had no convictions and didnt bring a firearm to work or even store it at home but just owned it (safely locked in grandpas garage safe). But then I suppose private companies have the legal right to do whatever they want.

Getting into the weeds with a lot of speculation -- why would such a database be available to "anyone". Stupid.

Because it's a database, and access is the point. Even if it were officially limited to special people, if it's accessible from the Internet, someone will break it eventually. It's not like there is going to be NSA level protection and oversight. The Office of Personnel Management's own database was hacked, and 20+ million government employees' personal information was exposed.

All of them could be hacked, and people could randomly decide that they want to target someone from one of those lists.

I, for one, would gladly accept the inconvenience that would come from having none of my personally identifiable information in any digital form.

You must be surrounded by some fantastically good drivers and honest people where you live. This change would make checking a driver's license impossible by a cop on the road. Enforcing traffic laws would therefore be a big farce. Anyone could just use a fake ID and fake insurance papers . . . the cop wouldn't be able to tell. If he wrote a ticket, he wouldn't know if the name on the license was real or not. Basically everyone would be driving based on the honor system.

It would also be pretty bad news for veterans. You know how shitty veterans services in the US are? That's because it's largely not computerized right now. You would sentence all future veterans to forever having to deal with the slowness and mistakes that occur due to mountains of paperwork.

Steve:

While computers and databases make things vastly more efficient, we did manage to enforce laws and have drivers licenses prior to the invention and especially the proliferation of computer. Computers and technology have made vast amounts of data available to law enforcement and they seem to want more.

I'm not arguing for no driver's license databases, but clearly we did manage w/o them at some point and there are some downsides to the current level of intrusion.